Wouldn't that mean that, in the case of ambiguous things like behavior of PI, use of the D20 logo on compilations, forbiddence of chargen and advancement, the FAQs would be explicitly wrong? That is, if it's ambiguous in the contract, so they are forced to publish a FAQ just to make sense of it, and someone has a conflicting interpretation of the license, wouldn't interpreting it "against the drafter" mean ignoring the FAQs?
Well, when I say "ambiguous", I mean "ambiguous in the contract", not "an ambiguous part of law." And, like Ryan said, the law defines bits rather clearly that appear ambiguous to you or me.
In short, what if i believe that sticking to the letter of the license *is* supporting the spirit of the license, while WotC doesn't? What should i do?
Follow the letter of the license, and triple-check that you're not stepping on WotC's toes.
Or, what if i believe it is impossible to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the license? Then what?
[Which, btw, is the stance i'm slowing moving towards through these discussions: that is, that the license does *not* embody the spirit of open-content development, so, if the letter of the license accurately matches the intent of the drafters, then that intent wasn't open-content development, despite their claims. Though, if Ryan's explanation of the nature of PI (essentially the "white out" interpretation) is correct, that shifts my stance back towards the spirit being open-content.]
The OGL is effectivly non-compulsory for new material. It's almost more BSD-like than GPL-like.
We, and open-content, can live with this. :)
DM
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
